Crawl performed by Internet Archive. This data is currently not publicly accessible.

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 4, 2002

Arguments Against a War in Iraq

Mr. Speaker;

I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into
a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no
American will be pleased with.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "Never was so much false arithmetic employed
on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in
their interests to go to war."

We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses for
why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished third
world nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or
air force, on the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our
country is made more vulnerable.

Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advocate
a "go slow" policy, while those without military experience are the
ones demanding this war.

We cannot ignore the fact that all of Iraq’s neighbors oppose this attack,
and our European allies object as well.

If the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no
sense to those who want a war, I advise they consider the $100 billion cost that
will surely compound our serious budget and economic problems we face here at
home. We need no more false arithmetic on our budget or false reasons for
pursuing this new adventure into preemptive war and worldwide nation-building.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer another quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said:
"No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These
dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of
office. We love and we value peace, we know its blessings from experience."

We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless
war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious
matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the
information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to
take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles to attack a country
that has not committed any aggression against this country. Many American now
share my belief that it would be a serious mistake.

First, there is a practical reason to oppose a war in Iraq. Our military now
has been weakened over the last decade, and when we go into Iraq we will clearly
dilute our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our national defense
by initiating this war. Besides, it is impractical because of unintended
consequences which none of us know about. We do not know exactly how long this
will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years or even
longer.

There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to listen to the
generals and other military experts, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft,
Anthony Zinni, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who are now advising us NOT to go to war.
Some have even cautioned against the possibility of starting World War III. They
understand that our troops have been spread too thin around the world, and it is
dangerous from a purely military standpoint to go to war today.

There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be
made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since
World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly
violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard
way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten,
anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of
clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory
will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective.
Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress,
not by a President and not by a U.N.

This is a very important matter, and I am delighted to hear that there will
be congressional hearings and discussion. I certainly believe we should have a
balanced approach. We have already had some hearings in the other body, where we
heard only one side of the issue. If we want to have real hearings, we should
have a debate and hear evidence on both sides, rather than just hearing
pro-war interests arguing for war.

There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict. War
is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be
an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People
get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is
not the politically smart thing to do.

There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our
economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a
hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of
over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred
billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and
how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the
recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all
kinds of economic ramifications.

There are countless diplomatic reasons for not going. All the Arab nations
near Iraq object to and do not endorse our plans, and none of our European
allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we make a serious
mistake by doing this. I hope we have second thoughts and are very cautious in
what we do.

There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government
to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying
goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional
power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs
of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never
abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for
peace and freedom.

Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military
force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of
dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first
strike" doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on
moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use
military force.